Discuss the arrest procedure, search and seizure, and custodial interrogation as it relates to juveniles. In your response, integrate the rulings of key U.S. Supreme Court cases, specifically for custodial interrogation

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

To make a legal arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that an offense took place and that the suspect is the guilty party. The main difference between arrests of adult and juvenile offenders is the broader latitude police have to control youthful behavior. Most juvenile codes, for instance, provide broad authority for the police to take juveniles into custody.

Most courts have held that the Fourth Amendment ban against unreasonable search and seizure applies to juveniles and that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in a juvenile trial.

The Miranda warning has been made applicable to children taken into custody. The Supreme Court case of in re Gault stated that constitutional privileges against self-incrimination are applicable in juvenile cases too. More recently (in 2011), the Supreme Court, in J.D.B. v. North Carolina, ruled that age does matter and that greater care must be taken by the police when questioning children in their custody. One problem associated with custodial interrogation of juveniles has to do with waiver of Miranda rights. Most courts have concluded that parents or attorneys need not be present for children effectively to waive their rights. In a frequently cited California case, People v. Lara, the court said that the question of a child's waiver is to be determined by the totality of the circumstances doctrine.